Supreme Court Ruling on Sara Duterte Impeachment Sparks Concerns
MANILA—Two founding figures behind the 1987 Constitution have raised serious alarms over the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. They warn the high court may have exceeded its authority, introducing new legal standards that undermine the due process and the clear intent of the Constitution.
Former Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and 1986 Constitutional Commission Commissioner Christian Monsod voiced their concerns during a recent forum, joining growing calls for the Supreme Court to reconsider its July 23 decision that halted the Senate impeachment trial. This ruling abruptly ended what would have been the first Senate impeachment trial in 12 years.
Supreme Court Halts Senate Impeachment Trial
The Supreme Court unanimously voted 13-0 to declare unconstitutional the House of Representatives’ transmission of the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte to the Senate. The court cited a violation of the one-year bar rule under Section 3(5), Article XI of the Constitution, which prohibits more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within one year.
Additionally, the court claimed the House failed to observe due process by not giving Duterte the chance to respond to the charges at the House level. However, Carpio and Monsod argue that the ruling misapplies the Constitution and imposes new procedural requirements retroactively, which lawmakers could not have anticipated.
SC Made ‘Basic Error,’ Retroactively Imposed New Requirement
Carpio, a co-convener of a pro-democracy coalition, criticized the Supreme Court’s interpretation, saying, “First, the plenary actually voted to approve the fourth complaint and to send it to the Senate. So the finding of the Supreme Court in the decision that there was no plenary approval [for] the fourth complaint is totally wrong because that’s not what the records of the House show.”
He emphasized that the plenary vote took place and that the House archived the earlier three complaints afterward. “The fourth complaint was filed on time. So it’s a very basic error there, and I think it deserves to be reconsidered by the Supreme Court,” Carpio added.
Carpio also condemned the Court for retroactively requiring a plenary hearing before an impeachment complaint can be considered properly initiated. “This was always a practice, and nobody in the world knew that there had to be a hearing at the plenary level. It’s a new requirement. And the Supreme Court imposed this new requirement retroactively,” he said.
He warned that applying this rule retroactively violates due process rights: “How can you comply with a requirement that never existed when you performed the act? There is a rule that when you overturn a doctrine… you have to apply it prospectively because there is a violation of due process if you make it retroactive.”
Carpio pointed out that the 2003 Francisco v. House of Representatives ruling did not require a plenary hearing. In past impeachment complaints, no such hearings were held since they were neither part of the rules nor mandated by any Supreme Court decision.
High Court Overreached Constitutional Role, Says Monsod
Monsod warned that the Supreme Court has overstepped its constitutional role, especially in interpreting the impeachment process. “The first point there is that there was a proposal that the Supreme Court should be the court, and that was voted down because the impeachment is a political act,” he said, recalling the 1986 Constitutional Commission deliberations.
Monsod explained that the framers intentionally limited the Court’s role to “strictly constitutional issues” because an impeached official could be a member of the judiciary. He criticized the Court for treating the House’s internal meeting as a hearing and for faulting it for not notifying Duterte or allowing her to respond at the House level. “That is wrong. That is not contemplated by the Constitution. The due process is observed in the hearings of the Senate, not in a meeting of the House of Representatives,” he stressed.
Monsod also maintained that the fourth complaint was valid and did not violate the one-year bar rule since it was filed and approved before the earlier complaints were addressed and dismissed, with a clear timestamp supporting this.
Because of these fundamental errors, Monsod said, “I think that therefore there is a motion for reconsideration [that] is really due.”
Potential Dangerous New Precedent from SC Ruling
The warnings from Carpio and Monsod add significant weight to the growing criticism against the Supreme Court’s decision, which many fear sets a dangerous precedent making impeachment nearly impossible. Carpio said, “The 1986 Constitutional provision said the intent of this provision is to liberalize the impeachment process… but now the Supreme Court ruling will make it very difficult. So it’s against the intention of the framers of the Constitution.”
Legal experts suggest the ruling could discourage future impeachment efforts against Duterte or any high-ranking official, especially if courts continue to impose new procedural rules after the fact.
Both Carpio and Monsod have called for a motion for reconsideration, urging the Supreme Court to revisit its ruling. As of now, the Supreme Court has not publicly responded to the mounting backlash.
For more news and updates on Sara Duterte impeachment complaint, visit Filipinokami.com.